Back
High Court Of Calcutta
R. BHATTACHARYYA, A. K. JANAH
BIVA BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
MANMATHA NATH BANERJEE - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal 218 Of 1974
Decided On : 09/21/1976
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EJECTMENT - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - OWNERSHIP OF PREMISES - ORDER OF REMAND - JURISDICTION OF LETTERS PATENT APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants-tenants from the disputed premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the first appellate court, which affirmed the finding of the trial court with regard to the plaintiff's reasonable requirement but remanded the suit to the trial court for a consideration of the question as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirement of Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that the finding of the appellate court that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family could not be sustained. The High Court also held that the order of remand passed by the first appellate court was not justified as there was no evidence on record to hold that there were any other owners of the disputed premises who ought to have been joined as plaintiffs in the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had satisfied the requirement of Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 2. Whether the finding of the appellate court that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family could be sustained? 3. Whether the order of remand passed by the first appellate court was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the averment made in paragraph 11 of the plaint was quite sufficient for the purpose of Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. Moreover, in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below, the High Court did not think that it would be justified in this appeal to go into the question as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. 2. The High Court held that the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court that the plaintiff's son owns a house of his own and that the said house does not belong to the plaintiff were supported by evidence and could not be disturbed. 3. The High Court held that the order of remand passed by the first appellate court was not justified as there was no evidence on record to hold that there were any other owners of the disputed premises who ought to have been joined as plaintiffs in the suit.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and restored the decree of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is on behalf of the tenants-defendants and it arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by the landlord-respondent on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of the members of his family. The suit premises consists of the north and western portion of premises No. 198. Upper Circular Road. Originally the defendants' father Bipin Krishan Banerjee was a tenant in respect of the disputed premises under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased premises No. 198, Upper Circular Road by a registered sale deed dated December 14, 1949 and became the owner of the said premises. The father of the defendant held the disputed premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 57. 50 payable according to English Calendar month.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case is that he purchased the disputed premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff has a joint family dwelling house at 195, Upper Circular Road which is just in front of the disputed premises. It is stated that the plaintiff has six brothers and each brother has a large family. The total number of rooms in the said joint family dwelling house is not sufficient to accommodate the families of the plaintiff and his brothers, it is alleged that for want of accommodation the plaintiff is compelled to live in the house of his wife's brother at 271, Kalighat Road. His possession in the said house is merely permissive. The plaintiff has two sons, one of whom is married and the other is of marriageable age. The plaintiff's son's wife is compelled to live at her father's house since her marriage on account of want of accommodation. The family of the plaintiff consists of himself, his wife, two sons, wife of the eldest son and one unmarried deformed daughter and one married daughter. The defence of the defendants is a denial of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation for the members of his family. The defendants allege that the plaintiff is the owner of premises Nos. 8a and 8c, Rashbehari Avenue which stand in the names of his sons.
( 3 ) THE learned Judge in the trial court upon a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Against the said decision the defendants preferred an appeal, being F. A. No. 665 of 1972, to this Court. The appeal came up for hearing before Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. who affirmed the finding of the trial court with regard to plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for the plaintiff's own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family, but remanded the suit to the trial court for a consideration of the question as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question. His Lordship directed that in case the answer is in the affirmative, the trial court will grant a decree for eviction. On the other hand if the answer be in the negative the plaintiff's suit shall be dismissed. Against this decision of Chittatosh Mookherjee, J. , the defendants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
( 4 ) MR. Bhose, learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal has argued in the first place, that the requirement of Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was not satisfied in the present case and as such the finding of the appellate court that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation cannot be sustained. Mr. Bhose drew our attention to the statements made in paragraph 11 of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff has no other house of his own in Calcutta, and contended that this averment is not sufficient for the purpose of Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
